D&D 5E A New Culture?

[Hillsy7]

I have read with interest a recent threads about balance and race choices. During the discussion I began wondering if there has been some culture shift in the community that I have been ignoring.

I think a large part of it is the medium of the discussion - namely internet forums.

Case in point, you have people being arguing with each other about at which edition people started arguing with each other. Which is only fractionally less of a parody of itself than a thread arguing Hitler was the personification of Godwin's law.

OK - pithy joke out of the way....

Some armchair psychology goes thusly: I think John Scalzi said that the failure state of 'Clever' is 'A$$hat'. On these and many other internet forums, you have an enormous amount of people extremely knowledgeable with a specific subject, with differing opinions, all crammed together arguing fine points of detail. The chances then of one of these clever people flipping into the fail state of Clever to make a point (or even just to take a cheap shot) is incredibly high. I think blending that in with a general human trait of experience bias, varying levels of empathy/dismissal, and the more pervasive issue of having to use language to communicate rather than vulcan mind-melding, which we all have differing skill-levels......You are going to get highly nuanced discussion poisoned by hyperbole.

A good example of this is, as you mentioned above, the Rapier/Short Sword debate. I have literally read people who call players "incapable" or "stupid", if they don't take a Rapier (and don't intend on TWFing). This is driven by a similar process as psychological pricing. With the Rapier and Short Sword, you are comparing two quantifiable numbers (6 & 8) against a known scale (higher=better), while at the same time comparing the value of something unquantifiable: how much your character wielding a certain weapon will add to your enjoyment. This is going to invariably lead to a disagreement between someone focusing on the clearly quantifiable, vs the person wanting a clear character concept. People being people, defending their position opens up the possibility for hyperbole to appear ("If you deliberately pick a Short Sword, you are actively ruining the game for your friends by not Maxing DPR"), which poops on everything.

Also worth noting that many, many threads and discussions start from a position of conflict of opinion: "I think rule [x] is poorly designed and would be better like [y]". Which is immediately going to be antagonistic to a decent number of people, one way or another, unless it's carefully/well worded.

 

[Ancalagon]

A good example of this is, as you mentioned above, the Rapier/Short Sword debate. I have literally read people who call players "incapable" or "stupid", if they don't take a Rapier (and don't intend on TWFing). This is driven by a similar process as psychological pricing. With the Rapier and Short Sword, you are comparing two quantifiable numbers (6 & 8) against a known scale (higher=better), while at the same time comparing the value of something unquantifiable: how much your character wielding a certain weapon will add to your enjoyment. This is going to invariably lead to a disagreement between someone focusing on the clearly quantifiable, vs the person wanting a clear character concept. People being people, defending their position opens up the possibility for hyperbole to appear ("If you deliberately pick a Short Sword, you are actively ruining the game for your friends by not Maxing DPR"), which poops on everything.

I've had this happen. I was trying to illustrate the principle above (that sub-optimal design is not a binary state) and instead of using a gnome battlemaster, I said someone who used a scimitar (strength based) instead of a longsword because of character design (a desert fighter). That triggered dozens of posts about how picking the scimitar was monstrously bad, profoundly irrational and completely nonsensical - the notion that someone would keep using a scimitar when longswords were available was deemed to be ludicrous.

 

[jasper]

I've seen this kind of poo-poo-ing sub-optimal choices going on in the early-ish days of 3e, so it's definitely not a new phenomenon...

And the poo-poo was back in 1E and the Expert system too. Me thinks Warpiglet is looking to the past thru Maple Syrup bacon glasses.

 

[jasper]

..... It seems more common now, but perhaps not.

Not. Not. Back then you d&d contacts was your group. That group in ROTC. The two interesting guys, 3 ho hum guys, 4 weirdoes, and 5 BEEP BEEP guys you met at the game store. And maybe a con.
The difference is INTERNET and all the social groups that you can connect too.
By the way I was either one of the 3 guys or one of five.

 

[Aldarc]

I have seen several posters suggest something to the effect of "video games are to blame," and that is ridiculous. It completely ignores how the sheer myriad of video games - and the mentality fostered by video games - often came out of tabletop gaming roots. The desire to create an "effective build" was already there in D&D's culture. The desire for rewarding "system mastery" was already there. The genre of "rogue-like" games are essentially old school D&D games: you died trying to do a dungeon crawl so you would make another character and repeat the process. Repeat enough times and the optimization strategy comes out on top. There was a lot of early D&D, by most accounts, of being incredibly player vs. GM focused. There very much was a desire to "win" the dungeon. People brought their preexisting characters to conventions to run dungeons and "win." People want to play effective characters, regardless of whether they are playing a tabletop game or a video game.

A few of my friends, including my fiancé, love roleplaying games. While they enjoy playing D&D, one of their common criticisms is that the game feels strongly indebted to wargaming and leans heavily on the combat pillar. Your games may be different - and you may fart odorless rainbows - but that common criticism remains. Matthew Colville even recently was involved in an interview on Geek & Sundry where he says as much: D&D is a tactical wargame. And overall, as a sort of overlapping consensus, that fosters a particular mentality, culture, and norm surrounding how players approach the game.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I have read with interest a recent threads about balance and race choices. During the discussion I began wondering if there has been some culture shift in the community that I have been ignoring.

What I found in that thread was worry that characters would not be viable unless the race and the class fit an archetype. As an example, unless you take a halfling for a rogue thief, you are nuts! A half-orc wizard? Madness!

To be frank, while there have been a few people making very bold claims about how you must do X, or that players will invariably pick options Y and Z, I'm pretty sure that these are the minority.
I think that even most of the posters here, if you mention that you're going to pick a sub-optimal combination, the general response will be "Good for you. It may not be the best numbers-wise, but max numbers aren't required in 5e. If you have fun with it, that is all the reason you need."
Outside of a minority throwing hyperbole/internet trash-talk around, even hardcore optimisers recognise that their optimised numbers aren't required - they just like having them.

I've had this happen. I was trying to illustrate the principle above (that sub-optimal design is not a binary state) and instead of using a gnome battlemaster, I said someone who used a scimitar (strength based) instead of a longsword because of character design (a desert fighter). That triggered dozens of posts about how picking the scimitar was monstrously bad, profoundly irrational and completely nonsensical - the notion that someone would keep using a scimitar when longswords were available was deemed to be ludicrous.

Likewise in that conversation if I'm remembering it correctly, it was only one or two posters who were being that aggressively offensive - Most were acknowledging that you were losing a point of damage, but that it wasn't concept-breaking.
The exception seemed to be basing their tirade on their interpretation of how setting reality and rules mechanics interacted, - which was not shared by most I believe.

There are certainly more discussions about character optimisation than the earlier days of D&D, but I don't know whether there is actually a greater push towards it by the playerbase. D&D editions and supplements have tended towards greater options for choice as they go on, which leads to greater scope for optimisation. The internet has led to greater scope and participants for the discussions that would take place around tables or in games shops about earlier editions.

 

[Ancalagon]

And to be fair, the reverse attitude also exists, where *any* optimisation is seen as outrageous munchkinism. I remember, in the last days of 2e, I made a dwarven fighter (sooo should have been a ranger but 2e...) with a high con. This got me accused of being a power gamer...

Thankfully, most people are in the middle.... I hope!

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Warpiglet]

People have many reasons to play this game. I have found over time a more balanced approach is better for me. No focus on ability and you don't get to move the story and game in the direction you would like it to go. Too much focus on numbers and I may as well play a board game.

However, I was just startled to see what may be a new player buying into the idea that you can't play a half-orc wizard or whatever. That just seems so limiting!

The suggestion seems to be that this it is too risky! Too risky?! So your paladin never takes chances to save people either? Or your thief doesn't dare steal because he might be hit with a trap? It seems to me that the risk of being slightly less than perfectly efficient with scores, class and race pale in comparison to the hundreds of in game actions that take place. In other words, the risk taken by choosing to fight is many times greater than having a one less +1 bonus in some area.

I think the "OMG Its dangerous out there!" conflates a +1 here or there with a totally gimped character. An analogy would be any risk being the same as running head long toward ancient dragon when you are 1st level.

I am thinking concerns are overblown. I am fine with people having fun the way they want to have fun with one caveat: I don't think it is doing new players a service by scaring them into tightly constrained choices.

 

[Warpiglet]

And to be fair, the reverse attitude also exists, where *any* optimisation is seen as outrageous munchkinism. I remember, in the last days of 2e, I made a dwarven fighter (sooo should have been a ranger but 2e...) with a high con. This got me accused of being a power gamer...

Thankfully, most people are in the middle.... I hope!

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

Yeah...that is absurd! What if I WANT to play a tough dwarf?! (Which I often have done!)

 

[Warpiglet]

And the poo-poo was back in 1E and the Expert system too. Me thinks Warpiglet is looking to the past thru Maple Syrup bacon glasses.

I think I may be forgetting that other people have different play groups and hence different experiences. Perhaps that is what you are doing as well.

In the way back, we were kids and tried to have as much power as possible because its natural. Later, we took more risks (I am talking with AD&D 1st edition still) and have not looked back.

And in our group, taking a weird race and class combo was simply a part of the fun and rarely optimal. But they weren't totally weak with no bonuses or whatever.

There is just a lot of variability out there and I am just experiencing more of it due to sites like these. I don't doubt some groups feel pressure to be uber tough. I just don't think the game requires it unless the DM makes the challenges require it. It is all probably relative.

I think I had my head in the sand and played with more like-minded players. Hell, we played together for ages and recently started back up (I am talking decades of history). I bet we shaped one another's play styles...